Doing Church without God

[noddy]

Needless to say, I would be just as scared of totalitarian atheists as I am by totalitarian muslims or jews or hindus. The only (and quite slim) advantage of atheists is that they lack an official central totalitarianism-endorsing dogma, whereas most other religions explicitly tell their adherents that they know what is best for others and that they are superior to others.

i disagree with that and think the humanitarian harm minimisation dogma combined with an unscientific reading of the latest isolated statistics is more than capable of authoritarian absurdities.

the standard argument is that science is self correcting and while thats true in the long term big picture thats sadly irrelevant for individuals due to the time it takes for proper science over decades and generations to reveal those corrections.

No, you are getting off track. Torchwood's example is the worldly trappings of religion completely removed from theism.

What is the stimulus/response value of the situation? This is an opportunity to separate the social value of religion from the theological.

like others in the anglosphere id use football as an existing secular replacement for much of the old role of the church, barring the explicit self help aspects.
it has a big electric social atmosphere, group chants and bonding and a central platform of people in funky costumes acting out a symbolised ritual on life in all its glory from brilliance to evil villains and everything inbetween.

this got me thinking about ecumenical-ism and its lack of penetration in the religious market - maybe they should steal back from football and having 2 tribe congregations and mix it up each week.. the local derby would be protestant/catholic or sunni/shia etc.

the only problem would be the scoring.. hmm..

[Taboo]

Atheists have proven themselves just as self-righteous and murderous, so that leaves us at a bit of a stalemate.

The obvious answer is to avoid creating the social structures that concentrate power into the hands of one individual or are easily captured by a small cohesive group, and working towards dismantling those that already exist or at least placing them in a context where the totalitarian impulses of various groups work against each other rather than in concert.

I'm not just referring to leaders and states here, but the average atheist. In my experience atheists are just as (or more) likely to hold violent views towards those who believe differently than they do. As for self-righteousness? Well, if you have access to the Internet I'm sure you can quickly find a few million examples of self-righteous atheism. YouTube and Twitter provide a steady stream of awfulness from atheists and theists alike. But atheism seem more fashionable at this precise moment.

Oh yeah, go you the comments sections of Youtube to get a statistically representative sampling of what (atheist) people around the world all think.

Clearly false, as history has proven. Not only does atheism have a history of ideologically-based mass-murder,

You seem to keep conflating atheism with communism. I'd love to hear you explain why you keep doing that. While most communists (not all) are atheists, most atheists are not communists.
If you're talking about the Nazis, the collusion of most Christian authorities with the Nazi/Fascist regimes (from Spain and Portugal to Italy and Germany) is well-documented. There were stand-outs, but they were a diminishing minority.

there is no ideological check on such behavior. For every "violent" passage in the Bible/Torah/Quran/whatever there is another "non-violent" one somewhere else. There is no such check on atheist excesses beyond what they can justify to themselves, and history has shown us that this isn't much of a check at all.

There is no religious check on atheists? Next time I see people screaming "There is no God!" and blowing themselves up in a marketplace full of women and children, I'll keep that it mind. Perhaps it has something to do with fervent belief in afterlife?

[Taboo]

Needless to say, I would be just as scared of totalitarian atheists as I am by totalitarian muslims or jews or hindus. The only (and quite slim) advantage of atheists is that they lack an official central totalitarianism-endorsing dogma, whereas most other religions explicitly tell their adherents that they know what is best for others and that they are superior to others.

i disagree with that and think the humanitarian harm minimisation dogma combined with an unscientific reading of the latest isolated statistics is more than capable of authoritarian absurdities.

I think banning smoking in bars or whatever is in an entirely different category from Albigensian crusades ("kill them all, let god sort them out") or the Wahhabi poison seeping out of a thousand Saudi-paid religious schools.

[Enki]

I never understood why pointing out that Communists were atheists was not germaine while pointing out that a minority of Christians throughout history have been murderous bastards is. Most Christians throughout history never killed anyone and never plotted to kill anyone. No I can't prove it, but being that most were not men at arms I think it's a fair assessment.

[Taboo]

I never understood why pointing out that Communists were atheists was not germaine while pointing out that a minority of Christians throughout history have been murderous bastards is. Most Christians throughout history never killed anyone and never plotted to kill anyone. No I can't prove it, but being that most were not men at arms I think it's a fair assessment.

I was gonna reply at length, but I've been called to the latest Atheisade against the Fidels.

[Doc]

I never understood why pointing out that Communists were atheists was not germaine while pointing out that a minority of Christians throughout history have been murderous bastards is. Most Christians throughout history never killed anyone and never plotted to kill anyone. No I can't prove it, but being that most were not men at arms I think it's a fair assessment.

Lefitsts have killed by far more than anybody else has in all history. NO I can't prove it being most of them were not men at arms I think it is a fair assessment

Stalin 40 million
Mao 30 to 75 million
Hitler 12 million and another 45 million during WWII

[Taboo]

I never understood why pointing out that Communists were atheists was not germaine while pointing out that a minority of Christians throughout history have been murderous bastards is. Most Christians throughout history never killed anyone and never plotted to kill anyone. No I can't prove it, but being that most were not men at arms I think it's a fair assessment.

Which is why one would do well to make a distinction between condemning totalitarian minded religious organizations and individual members of the religions who may be perfectly nice people.

This isn't rocket science.
Most organized religions have a hierarchy that can be (and is often) captured by power-hungry folks. Most religions are totalitarian, in the sense that they desire to control the totality of a person's existence (what they do in bed, what they think, what they teach their kids, etc).
Atheism implies the lack of such organization. Therefore it is intrinsically more benign. Can atheists be deceived by the siren call of other totalitarian systems? Of course, which is why people have to be imbued with love of freedom and a healthy distrust of authority.

[Ibrahim]

I never understood why pointing out that Communists were atheists was not germaine while pointing out that a minority of Christians throughout history have been murderous bastards is. Most Christians throughout history never killed anyone and never plotted to kill anyone. No I can't prove it, but being that most were not men at arms I think it's a fair assessment.

Lefitsts have killed by far more than anybody else has in all history. NO I can't prove it being most of them were not men at arms I think it is a fair assessment

Stalin 40 million
Mao 30 to 75 million
Hitler 12 million and another 45 million during WWII

I actually consider these figures right-wing. Hitler clearly is, as everybody on Earth except Americans can understand that fascism is the right-wing version of socialism, and I think that Mao and Stalin are actually fascists and not communists. But then Lenin was a communist and caused many deaths so I oppose either form of government. E.g. Americans, by no means leftists and overwhelmingly Christian, have of course killed millions of civilians as well.

But left/right isn't particularly relevant to our discussion. The only point is that both atheists and theists have plenty of historical baggage. Saying "well, us atheists don't do things like that" will crash and burn every time.

[Ibrahim]

I never understood why pointing out that Communists were atheists was not germaine while pointing out that a minority of Christians throughout history have been murderous bastards is. Most Christians throughout history never killed anyone and never plotted to kill anyone. No I can't prove it, but being that most were not men at arms I think it's a fair assessment.

Which is why one would do well to make a distinction between condemning totalitarian minded religious organizations and individual members of the religions who may be perfectly nice people.

This isn't rocket science.
Most organized religions have a hierarchy that can be (and is often) captured by power-hungry folks. Most religions are totalitarian, in the sense that they desire to control the totality of a person's existence (what they do in bed, what they think, what they teach their kids, etc).
Atheism implies the lack of such organization. Therefore it is intrinsically more benign. Can atheists be deceived by the siren call of other totalitarian systems? Of course, which is why people have to be imbued with love of freedom and a healthy distrust of authority.

This fallacy is the next step in the stereotypical atheist critique. First, atheists aren't violent, then when its shown they can be violent the argument becomes that atheists are violent in spite of atheism, whereas theists are violent because of their religion. There is no evidence given beyond the vague pronouncement itself.

As a side note, this is the same thing that happens in arguments with Islamophobes. "Muslims are violent!" "So are Christians!" "Well, Christians are violent in spite of Christianity, Muslims are violent because of Islam."

If we want to be really tedious this is a classic example of the "true Scotsman fallacy."

[Ibrahim]

Atheists have proven themselves just as self-righteous and murderous, so that leaves us at a bit of a stalemate.

The obvious answer is to avoid creating the social structures that concentrate power into the hands of one individual or are easily captured by a small cohesive group, and working towards dismantling those that already exist or at least placing them in a context where the totalitarian impulses of various groups work against each other rather than in concert.

I'm not just referring to leaders and states here, but the average atheist. In my experience atheists are just as (or more) likely to hold violent views towards those who believe differently than they do. As for self-righteousness? Well, if you have access to the Internet I'm sure you can quickly find a few million examples of self-righteous atheism. YouTube and Twitter provide a steady stream of awfulness from atheists and theists alike. But atheism seem more fashionable at this precise moment.

Oh yeah, go you the comments sections of Youtube to get a statistically representative sampling of what (atheist) people around the world all think.

Would you agree or disagree that there is plenty of smugness and self-righteousness among atheists? A vocal minority in any case.

Clearly false, as history has proven. Not only does atheism have a history of ideologically-based mass-murder,

You seem to keep conflating atheism with communism.

Atheism is a component of communist ideology, and many religious people were killed by atheistic regimes for being openly religious. Those two statements are facts.

I'd love to hear you explain why you keep doing that.

Because some atheists claim that there are no atrocities linked to their belief system. Not only is this claim wrong, it is enormously, hilariously wrong.

While most communists (not all) are atheists, most atheists are not communists.

Most theists are not repressive murderers either. This line or argument originates with atheists who possess a very myopic view of history.

If you're talking about the Nazis, the collusion of most Christian authorities with the Nazi/Fascist regimes (from Spain and Portugal to Italy and Germany) is well-documented.
There were stand-outs, but they were a diminishing minority.

So too atheist stand-outs resisting the mass-murder committed by atheist communist regimes.

there is no ideological check on such behavior. For every "violent" passage in the Bible/Torah/Quran/whatever there is another "non-violent" one somewhere else. There is no such check on atheist excesses beyond what they can justify to themselves, and history has shown us that this isn't much of a check at all.

There is no religious check on atheists? Next time I see people screaming "There is no God!" and blowing themselves up in a marketplace full of women and children, I'll keep that it mind.

Typically atheist terrorist were bomb throwers, not self-detonators. When in power, atheists switched to mechanized mass-murder, as was the style at the time. As atheist regimes have killed more human beings, including the expected proportion of women and children, than any others in human history, the methods are really only relevant as a form of trivia.

The question is this: Why shouldn't Stalin kill women and children? Why do you believe this was the wrong thing to do, beyond your personal subjective opinion that it was wrong?

Perhaps it has something to do with fervent belief in afterlife?

I can't imagine why. There is no religion that I am aware of that permits the murder of civilians. Only atheists, who face no judgment for any of their actions in life, can murder with impunity, knowing that they will face the same end as a person who spent their life healing the sick and protecting the weak.

[Taboo]

Most organized religions have a hierarchy that can be (and is often) captured by power-hungry folks. Most religions are totalitarian, in the sense that they desire to control the totality of a person's existence (what they do in bed, what they think, what they teach their kids, etc).
Atheism implies the lack of such organization. Therefore it is intrinsically more benign. Can atheists be deceived by the siren call of other totalitarian systems? Of course, which is why people have to be imbued with love of freedom and a healthy distrust of authority.

This fallacy is the next step in the stereotypical atheist critique. First, atheists aren't violent, then when its shown they can be violent the argument becomes that atheists are violent in spite of atheism, whereas theists are violent because of their religion. There is no evidence given beyond the vague pronouncement itself.

I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing. Just above, I typed that atheism, when not combined with the proper values (love of freedom and a healthy distrust of authority) is no antidote to totalitarianism, as the 20th century has shown.

The point was that organized religions and their leaders can be bullied or bribed into supporting tyrants. The early takeover of the Christian church by the Roman emperors; the shameful saga of Orthodox priests in Romania who were also Secret Service informers, breaking the secret of confession; the fact that 95% of Germans were Protestants and Catholics, and that the The Lutherans, with the exception of a handful of dissenters in the confessing church, can be said to have more of less welcomed Hitler; numerous calls for genocide against Israel by Sunni and Shia religious leaders, who are nonetheless complicit in despotism at home.

The hierarchical nature of the organization, with a top leader trusted by many, makes religions both strong (easy to speak with one voice - like Pope John Paul II against the Soviets in Poland) but at the same time vulnerable to totalitarian takeover (such as the Ayathollah regime in Iran today, or Luterans in Nazi Germany).
Atheists do not have such structures, so are not bound by the dictates of famous atheists. There is no leader of atheism, never mind the unbelievable conceit of such a leader being divinely inspired and (often) infallible (as in Catholicism and Mormonism). This diminishes the voice of atheism (it's the only group in America against which people can still say bigoted things against and get away with it), but at the same time, prevents the easy spread of such mental viruses.

[Taboo]

Would you agree or disagree that there is plenty of smugness and self-righteousness among atheists? A vocal minority in any case.

So? Rabid atheists on Youtube comments sections haven't murdered anyone, which is more than can be said about rabid Wahhabis or crazy anti-abortion bombers.

Atheism is a component of communist ideology, and many religious people were killed by atheistic regimes for being openly religious. Those two statements are facts.

Communist regimes were only against religion when they couldn't control it. Stalin was quick to use the Orthodox church to boost troop moral during WWII, and in Eastern Europe priest-informants were common as dirt. You'd think that in 90 years of totalitarian rule with millions murdered they would have actually closed all the churches if they had actually wanted to, no? Funny how they didn't, after they gained control of them.

Because some atheists claim that there are no atrocities linked to their belief system. Not only is this claim wrong, it is enormously, hilariously wrong.

Great. But it is not what I claimed. I think you've spent too long reading those Youtube comments, you only seem to be able to reply against them.

Typically atheist terrorist were bomb throwers, not self-detonators. When in power, atheists switched to mechanized mass-murder, as was the style at the time.

Are we talking about the Americans and the British in WWII, and their nuclear and saturation fire-bombing tactics? Because I was under the assumption that the Americans made a big deal about not being Godless like the Communists.

The question is this: Why shouldn't Stalin kill women and children? Why do you believe this was the wrong thing to do, beyond your personal subjective opinion that it was wrong?

Why do you believe it was the wrong thing to do, beyond your personal subjective opinion that your religion is true? Two can play this game.

I can't imagine why. There is no religion that I am aware of that permits the murder of civilians. Only atheists, who face no judgment for any of their actions in life, can murder with impunity, knowing that they will face the same end as a person who spent their life healing the sick and protecting the weak.

The people sacrificed on top of Aztec pyramids would strongly object, if their hearts were still in the right place. It's interesting that when you look at the statistics, atheists actually have the lowest murder and incarceration rates in America. (See Zuckerman 2009). This also holds at the national level: the most secular nations tend to have the lowest murder rates. Female equality is also highest in the most secular nations. In the most religions nations, they are made to wear ninja outfits and in one they cannot be trusted to drive. Funny how that works.

[noddy]

Needless to say, I would be just as scared of totalitarian atheists as I am by totalitarian muslims or jews or hindus. The only (and quite slim) advantage of atheists is that they lack an official central totalitarianism-endorsing dogma, whereas most other religions explicitly tell their adherents that they know what is best for others and that they are superior to others.

i disagree with that and think the humanitarian harm minimisation dogma combined with an unscientific reading of the latest isolated statistics is more than capable of authoritarian absurdities.

I think banning smoking in bars or whatever is in an entirely different category from Albigensian crusades ("kill them all, let god sort them out") or the Wahhabi poison seeping out of a thousand Saudi-paid religious schools.

this isnt theist/atheist- this the modern west versus the pre modern tribal mobs and the worst crime of modern anglicans is being mindnumblingly boring.

my point was that their is dogma in modern atheism and that dogma can be twisted in personal politics and tribal nonsense as much as any - i shudder to get back in to the usual soviet/nazi slurs but communism can be seen as a harm minimsation scheme in dogma even if it was anything but that in practice.

Most organized religions have a hierarchy that can be (and is often) captured by power-hungry folks. Most religions are totalitarian, in the sense that they desire to control the totality of a person's existence (what they do in bed, what they think, what they teach their kids, etc).
Atheism implies the lack of such organization.

aaah this i can sort of agree with except their is a power structure in secular atheism and while our system was structured to minimise takeover and maintain balance of powers to keep it open and honest their is a certain level of comfy familiarity forming between the previously seperated powers and the suspicion that the 2 party systems have taken on a life of their own that is becoming disconnected from people they represent.

Therefore it is intrinsically more benign. Can atheists be deceived by the siren call of other totalitarian systems? Of course, which is why people have to be imbued with love of freedom and a healthy distrust of authority.

totally agree with this - shame its an archaic viewpoint with decreasing popular support, you end up in the loony libertarian or tea party groupings talking like that.

[Ibrahim]

Would you agree or disagree that there is plenty of smugness and self-righteousness among atheists? A vocal minority in any case.

So? Rabid atheists on Youtube comments sections haven't murdered anyone, which is more than can be said about rabid Wahhabis or crazy anti-abortion bombers.

Atheists don't commit murders? Amazing! But, and I've highlighted it in case you missed it, I was referring to self-righteousness. Or perhaps your response was an implicit endorsement of my point?

Atheism is a component of communist ideology, and many religious people were killed by atheistic regimes for being openly religious. Those two statements are facts.

Communist regimes were only against religion when they couldn't control it.

So atheists only kill religious people when they find it expedient? Great save.

You'd think that in 90 years of totalitarian rule with millions murdered they would have actually closed all the churches if they had actually wanted to, no?

They closed many. Stalin was going to bulldoze the famous cathedral of Basil the Blessed until a number of major party figured stopped him. Chinese atheists have burned hundreds of Buddhist monasteries and killing thousands of monks.

Funny how they didn't

...except they did.

Because some atheists claim that there are no atrocities linked to their belief system. Not only is this claim wrong, it is enormously, hilariously wrong.

Great. But it is not what I claimed. I think you've spent too long reading those Youtube comments, you only seem to be able to reply against them.

I've again highlighted the relevant portion that you missed. I'm glad that you specifically are aware of the many atrocities committed by atheists, and that you are too well-informed and clever to try and argue that atheists don't commit atrocities while only theists do.

Typically atheist terrorist were bomb throwers, not self-detonators. When in power, atheists switched to mechanized mass-murder, as was the style at the time.

Are we talking about the Americans and the British in WWII,

No I'm referring to atheist-anarchist terrorists in late 19th and early 20th century Europe, and then totalitarian states of atheist communists in China and the USSR.

The question is this: Why shouldn't Stalin kill women and children? Why do you believe this was the wrong thing to do, beyond your personal subjective opinion that it was wrong?

Why do you believe it was the wrong thing to do, beyond your personal subjective opinion that your religion is true? Two can play this game.

I'm happy to answer the question if you cannot. I believe it violates an absolute morality built into the cosmos by God. It is wrong, as an absolute, to kill innocent people. But atheists don't believe in God or, as far as I know, transcendent absolutes. So why shouldn't Stalin murder all the primitive theists he wants?

I can't imagine why. There is no religion that I am aware of that permits the murder of civilians. Only atheists, who face no judgment for any of their actions in life, can murder with impunity, knowing that they will face the same end as a person who spent their life healing the sick and protecting the weak.

The people sacrificed on top of Aztec pyramids would strongly object,

Is that an extant religion? Obviously I'm familiar with ancient, defunct religions. I just referenced the Phoenecians a couple of days ago.

It's interesting that when you look at the statistics, atheists actually have the lowest murder and incarceration rates in America.

That's so interesting. Did you know African-Americans have the highest incarceration rates? Do you think that one, both, or neither of those facts are useful?

This also holds at the national level: the most secular nations tend to have the lowest murder rates.

Unless they are officially atheist states. Then the government murders tens of millions.

Female equality is also highest in the most secular nations. In the most religions nations, they are made to wear ninja outfits and in one they cannot be trusted to drive.

Which countries are those exactly? I think you've been reading too much Sam Harris, you can't argue in favor of your personal religious ideology without smearing certain other cultures as inferior. But you've had this problem in the past, it isn't necessarily caused by your religion.

[Taboo]

I'm happy to answer the question if you cannot. I believe it violates an absolute morality built into the cosmos by God. It is wrong, as an absolute, to kill innocent people.

All that is merely your subjective belief.

But atheists don't believe in God or, as far as I know, transcendent absolutes. So why shouldn't Stalin murder all the primitive theists he wants?

There's no reason why he cannot. Provided we subjectively believe that people being murdered by the millions is a bad thing the best way to do so is to prevent the kind of accumulation of power that would allow one individual to organize the murder of millions. Again, we go back to principles espoused by the Scottish enlightenment and the American revolutions. It turns out that so far, societies built upon principles that prevent such an accumulation of power (and thus do not greatly reward attempts to capture various high offices of the state) have fared better than societies where despotic rule has continued to be absolute.

My guess is that such societies, by refusing to enforce uniformity, can instead dedicate the resources used in enforcing (and resisting) uniformity to explore the possibility space and make improvements in everyday lives.

There is nothing to say that a tyrannical and ruthless AI-ruled nation in the future could not best and vanquish the most valiant efforts of a liberal freedom-loving society. But I'm willing to take my chances.

[Taboo]

So? Rabid atheists on Youtube comments sections haven't murdered anyone, which is more than can be said about rabid Wahhabis or crazy anti-abortion bombers.

Atheists don't commit murders?

Not what I said. I said that posting vitriolic comments about religion on Youtube is not illegal, and does not qualify as "murderous" as you claimed (present tense) atheists are. At least, it's not illegal. Not in America. There are other religiously-led societies where it is illegal, of course. Was it Malaysia that just forbade non-Muslims from even using the word Allah? Now that's what I call dangerous and self-righteous, not a bunch of dorks on Youtube.

So atheists only kill religious people when they find it expedient? Great save.

Yes, because it proved my points that Communists were happy to coopt religion to their benefit, which shows that the ideological commitment to atheism was not a sacrament.

They closed many. Stalin was going to bulldoze the famous cathedral of Basil the Blessed until a number of major party figured stopped him. Chinese atheists have burned hundreds of Buddhist monasteries and killing thousands of monks.

And yet all religions are tolerated by the Communist party, as long as they don't pose a political threat. Again, politics rather than atheist ideology is shown to be in play.

Funny how they didn't

...except they did.

Except when they didn't. I couldn't help noticing how all mentions of coopted priests vanished from your reply.

I've again highlighted the relevant portion that you missed. I'm glad that you specifically are aware of the many atrocities committed by atheists, and that you are too well-informed and clever to try and argue that atheists don't commit atrocities while only theists do.

Yup, I believe that the primary political division is between totalitarians and freedom-lovers (libertarians or whatever you wish to call them). Totalitarianism (derived from top-down concepts that someone knows what is best) leads to misery and millions of deaths, while the other (freedom, based on a network-based concept that items maximized should be determined locally) leads to human flourishing for as long as it can be maintained. Obviously the story is complicated by issues of incomplete information and nontransitivity of preferences, but the basic principles stand.

Atheism or religion are only marginally involved, with atheism helpful only insofar as if freely adopted it is often associated with skepticism of authority, and if lucky a love of freedom and an appreciation of the fragility of human consciousness.

No I'm referring to atheist-anarchist terrorists in late 19th and early 20th century Europe, and then totalitarian states of atheist communists in China and the USSR.

WWII was about mechanized murder, done by the totalitarian Nazis against the people under their occupation and by the Christian Americans and Brits against civilians in Germany and Japan. One one nation, under God, has used nukes in wrath so far. The Turks managed a genocide without atheism just fine, as did the people of Rwanda. The common thread is not atheism, but totalitarianism and dictatorship.

Is that an extant religion? Obviously I'm familiar with ancient, defunct religions. I just referenced the Phoenecians a couple of days ago.

So we are both aware of religions promoting the murder of innocents. It is both possible and a matter of historical record. Good that we agree.

That's so interesting. Did you know African-Americans have the highest incarceration rates? Do you think that one, both, or neither of those facts are useful?

Not useful towards your argument, no. It is odd, however, given how religious people scream that without religion there can be no morality, to observe that without religion, crime rates seem to be lower, both in the case of individuals in religious countries, and in the case of more secular countries and societies overall. Obviously you would bring irrelevant issues of race and try to sidestep.

Unless they are officially atheist states. Then the government murders tens of millions.

Of course, since all officially atheist states COERCE people into being atheists, rather than evolve towards atheism and secularism by the free and organic choices of their citizens.

Which countries are those exactly? I think you've been reading too much Sam Harris, you can't argue in favor of your personal religious ideology without smearing certain other cultures as inferior. But you've had this problem in the past, it isn't necessarily caused by your religion.

1 Iceland
2 Finland
3 Norway
4 Sweden
according to the global gender gap report. Incidentally, all countries above are in the top 10 of atheism. I do think that different countries treat their women better than others, and I think that is a vital measure of the progress towards maximixing human dignity and potential. If I were a woman, I'd much rather live in one of the above rather than in Nigeria, South Africa, Russia, India or America.

[monster_gardener]

Atheists have proven themselves just as self-righteous and murderous, so that leaves us at a bit of a stalemate.

The obvious answer is to avoid creating the social structures that concentrate power into the hands of one individual or are easily captured by a small cohesive group, and working towards dismantling those that already exist or at least placing them in a context where the totalitarian impulses of various groups work against each other rather than in concert.

I'm not just referring to leaders and states here, but the average atheist. In my experience atheists are just as (or more) likely to hold violent views towards those who believe differently than they do. As for self-righteousness? Well, if you have access to the Internet I'm sure you can quickly find a few million examples of self-righteous atheism. YouTube and Twitter provide a steady stream of awfulness from atheists and theists alike. But atheism seem more fashionable at this precise moment.

Oh yeah, go you the comments sections of Youtube to get a statistically representative sampling of what (atheist) people around the world all think.

Would you agree or disagree that there is plenty of smugness and self-righteousness among atheists? A vocal minority in any case.

Clearly false, as history has proven. Not only does atheism have a history of ideologically-based mass-murder,

You seem to keep conflating atheism with communism.

Atheism is a component of communist ideology, and many religious people were killed by atheistic regimes for being openly religious. Those two statements are facts.

I'd love to hear you explain why you keep doing that.

Because some atheists claim that there are no atrocities linked to their belief system. Not only is this claim wrong, it is enormously, hilariously wrong.

While most communists (not all) are atheists, most atheists are not communists.

Most theists are not repressive murderers either. This line or argument originates with atheists who possess a very myopic view of history.

If you're talking about the Nazis, the collusion of most Christian authorities with the Nazi/Fascist regimes (from Spain and Portugal to Italy and Germany) is well-documented.
There were stand-outs, but they were a diminishing minority.

So too atheist stand-outs resisting the mass-murder committed by atheist communist regimes.

there is no ideological check on such behavior. For every "violent" passage in the Bible/Torah/Quran/whatever there is another "non-violent" one somewhere else. There is no such check on atheist excesses beyond what they can justify to themselves, and history has shown us that this isn't much of a check at all.

There is no religious check on atheists? Next time I see people screaming "There is no God!" and blowing themselves up in a marketplace full of women and children, I'll keep that it mind.

Typically atheist terrorist were bomb throwers, not self-detonators. When in power, atheists switched to mechanized mass-murder, as was the style at the time. As atheist regimes have killed more human beings, including the expected proportion of women and children, than any others in human history, the methods are really only relevant as a form of trivia.

The question is this: Why shouldn't Stalin kill women and children? Why do you believe this was the wrong thing to do, beyond your personal subjective opinion that it was wrong?

Perhaps it has something to do with fervent belief in afterlife?

I can't imagine why. There is no religion that I am aware of that permits the murder of civilians. Only atheists, who face no judgment for any of their actions in life, can murder with impunity, knowing that they will face the same end as a person who spent their life healing the sick and protecting the weak.

Thank you for your post, Ibrahim.

There is no religion that I am aware of that permits the murder of civilians.

Then you seem to be not very aware.....

Or have a bad memory*.....

Or have an 'opinion'

That is not congruent with facts:

Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, full name Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (Arabic): ابو حامد محمد بن محمد الغزالى for short: الغزالى ) (born 1058 C.E. in Tus, Khorasan province of Persia in modern day Iran; died 1111 C.E. in Tus) was a Muslim theologian and jurist, known as Algazel to the western medieval world. Al-Ghazali was one of the greatest jurists, theologians and mystical thinkers in the Islamic tradition.
............
Al-Ghazali is sometimes charged with having had a negative view of non-Muslims and to encourage jihad against them. The following passage from his work on Shafi law, Al-wajiz fi fiqh al-imam al-shafi'i, which he wrote in 1101, and is widely cited:

one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year… one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Al-Ghazali

This is NOT just an theoretical "opinion" of Ghazali as an Islamic jurist & theologian....

It describes actual Muslim practice beginning with Mohammed himself with catapults being used at the siege of Taif.....

The Siege of Taif took place in 630, as the Muslims besieged the city of Taif after their victory in the Battle of Hunayn and Autas. However, the city did not succumb to the siege. One of their chieftains, Urwah ibn Mas'ud, was absent in Yemen during that siege.[1] Muhammad brought catapults and testudos to use against the fortress, but was unable to penetrate it, with the weapon.[2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ta%27if

*I have quoted Ghazali to you before.

[Mr. Perfect]

I actually consider these figures right-wing. fascism is the right-wing version of socialism.

Hardy har har.

Football is the Catholic version of candy canes. Cog Dis ftw, beam me up scotty.

Human desperation leads to some amazing things.

[Doc]

I actually consider these figures right-wing. fascism is the right-wing version of socialism.

Hardy har har.

Football is the Catholic version of candy canes. Cog Dis ftw, beam me up scotty.

Human desperation leads to some amazing things.

Certainly desperate. Fascism is a lot more left wing than right wing.

Left wing ideology anyone?

I, too, had been tossed around by life in the metropolis- in my own skin I could feel the effects of this fate and taste them with my soul. One more thing I saw: the rapid change from work to unemployment and vice versa, plus the resultant fluctuation of income, end by destroying in many all feeling for thrift, or any understanding for a prudent ordering of their lives. It would seem that the body gradually becomes accustomed to living on the fat of the land in good times and going hungry in bad times. Indeed, hunger destroys any resolution for reasonable budgeting in better times to come by holding up to the eyes of its tormented victim an eternal mirage of good living and raising this dream to such a pitch of longing that a pathological desire puts an end to all restraint as soon as wages and earnings make it at all possible. The consequence is that once the man obtains work he irresponsibly forgets all ideas of order and discipline, and begins to live luxuriously for the pleasures of the moment. This upsets even the small weekly budget, as even here any intelligent apportionment is lacking; in the beginning it suffices for five days instead of seven, later only for three, finally scarcely for one day, and in the end it is drunk up in the very first night.
Often he has a wife and children at home. Sometimes they, too, are infected by this life, especially when the man is good to them on the whole and actually loves them in his own way. Then the weekly wage is used up by the whole family in two or three days; they eat and drink as long as the money holds out and the last days they go hungry. Then the wife drags herself out into the neighborhood, borrows a little, runs up little debts at the food store, and in this way strives to get through the hard last days of the week. At noon they all sit together before their meager and sometimes empty bowls, waiting for the next payday, speaking of it, making plans, and, in their hunger, dreaming of the happiness to come.

http://tinyurl.com/kju8quv

[Ibrahim]

Certainly desperate. Fascism is a lot more left wing than right wing.

Not at all. The American far-right is essentially fascist with some hollow libertarian rhetoric tacked on. But both are fanatical nationalists that worship military force, permit the government to do anything in the name of national security, and wish to enforce their version of morality on as much of people's private lives as possible (features shared by Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism). This is in fact one of the most embarrassing things about American conservatism: self-denial. European far-right parties are openly fascist, American fascists pretend they are frontiersmen.

[Ibrahim]

There is no religion that I am aware of that permits the murder of civilians.

Then you seem to be not very aware.....

I am more aware of this subject than you are. Islam does not permit the murder of civilians, and examples of such are a tiny aberration. For a great explanation of this from a legitimate expert on the subject perhaps consult Bernard Lewis? I recommend against cut-pasting arguments and quotes from random websites.

Not that this comment of your was even on topic. Just more spamming of failed arguments you've maid in a dozen unrelated threads.

[Ibrahim]

So? Rabid atheists on Youtube comments sections haven't murdered anyone, which is more than can be said about rabid Wahhabis or crazy anti-abortion bombers.

Atheists don't commit murders?

Not what I said. I said that posting vitriolic comments about religion on Youtube is not illegal, and does not qualify as "murderous" as you claimed (present tense) atheists are.

Prominent atheist figures like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have made numerous violent comments, and YouTube videos of them or related to them will receive many violent or racist comments from atheists who are inspired by or support their views. But my original point about comments was their self-righteousness and smugness. Murderousness is a bonus.

At least, it's not illegal. Not in America. There are other religiously-led societies where it is illegal, of course. Was it Malaysia that just forbade non-Muslims from even using the word Allah? Now that's what I call dangerous and self-righteous, not a bunch of dorks on Youtube.

American atheists, or some portion thereof, freely support and encourage the murder of third world peasants as long as they are the wrong color/religion, but I guess if you consider those cultures backwards enough then their lives are forfeit and there is really no problem whatsoever. Some atheists promote violence? "Yeah, well, look what's goin' on in f_ckin' Malaysia!" Oh, well that's too bad as well. I guess they cancel each other out in some kind of hedonic calculus that passes for atheist morality?

So atheists only kill religious people when they find it expedient? Great save.

Yes, because it proved my points that Communists were happy to coopt religion to their benefit, which shows that the ideological commitment to atheism was not a sacrament.

An intentional misrepresentation of that exchange, as you well know. This is the ST I remember. Pretending you're on the attack when in fact you are dodging and ducking obvious flaws in your supremacist arguments. The fact remains that atheist regimes were the greatest mass-murderers in history, regardless of how you try to justify or obscure that fact. You could have accepted it and moved on, saying "violence isn't inherent to atheism" but your "cultural" supremacism wouldn't let you.

They closed many. Stalin was going to bulldoze the famous cathedral of Basil the Blessed until a number of major party figured stopped him. Chinese atheists have burned hundreds of Buddhist monasteries and killing thousands of monks.

And yet all religions are tolerated by the Communist party, as long as they don't pose a political threat.

Lets see what you say about this below.*

Funny how they didn't

...except they did.

Except when they didn't. I couldn't help noticing how all mentions of coopted priests vanished from your reply.

Just like you conveniently excised the context of this reply? In any case the mass-murder of atheist regimes was not curtailed by "stand-out" atheist critics, so despite your irrelevant reference to collaborators among religious groups the fact remains that atheist regimes were the champion mass-murderers, and dissenting atheists could not prevent or dissuade them.

I've again highlighted the relevant portion that you missed. I'm glad that you specifically are aware of the many atrocities committed by atheists, and that you are too well-informed and clever to try and argue that atheists don't commit atrocities while only theists do.

Yup, I believe that the primary political division is between totalitarians and freedom-lovers (libertarians or whatever you wish to call them).

Not at all. Its between supremacists and egalitarians. Atheist states, like some atheists or Talibs or Inquisitors or whomever, operate(d) under the assumption that they are/were superior to other people, and thus anything is permitted by them against their inferiors. Egalitarians oppose this.

Atheism or religion are only marginally involved,

I don't disagree with this part. Atheists behave just as terribly as anyone else when infected by this sickness, as I've described previously here and in other threads using other comparisons.

No I'm referring to atheist-anarchist terrorists in late 19th and early 20th century Europe, and then totalitarian states of atheist communists in China and the USSR.

WWII was about mechanized murder,

Indeed, the entire 20th century was mechanized murder. But at the forefront of that murder, the "greatest" murderers if you will, were atheist regimes.

The common thread is not atheism, but totalitarianism and dictatorship.

The common thread is supremacism, which atheists have no trouble adopting, obviously.

Is that an extant religion? Obviously I'm familiar with ancient, defunct religions. I just referenced the Phoenecians a couple of days ago.

So we are both aware of religions promoting the murder of innocents. It is both possible and a matter of historical record. Good that we agree.

Rather, you deliberately misunderstood the original comment. But this is of little consequence, since you aren't challenging the original point either. We agree, then.

That's so interesting. Did you know African-Americans have the highest incarceration rates? Do you think that one, both, or neither of those facts are useful?

Not useful towards your argument, no. It is odd, however, given how religious people scream that without religion there can be no morality, to observe that without religion, crime rates seem to be lower, both in the case of individuals in religious countries, and in the case of more secular countries and societies overall. Obviously you would bring irrelevant issues of race and try to sidestep.

You don't seem to be able to explain why your arbitrary statistic is meaningful and Juggs' statistic is not. Instead you've ducked the question. By your logic, and using these statistics, atheists are less inclined to criminality, and African-Americans are more inclined to criminality. This doesn't speak to either of our overall arguments, only the logical implications of this statistic as you presented it. So are incarceration rates a meaningful measure? And if so, what are they a meaningful measure of?

Unless they are officially atheist states. Then the government murders tens of millions.

Of course, since all officially atheist states COERCE people into being atheists, rather than evolve towards atheism and secularism by the free and organic choices of their citizens.

*But wait, you just said that the officially atheist states of China and Russia only killed people when it was politically expedient, now you seem to be saying they force their religious views on their citizens, killing millions. Which is it?

Which countries are those exactly? I think you've been reading too much Sam Harris, you can't argue in favor of your personal religious ideology without smearing certain other cultures as inferior. But you've had this problem in the past, it isn't necessarily caused by your religion.

1 Iceland
2 Finland
3 Norway
4 Sweden
according to the global gender gap report. Incidentally, all countries above are in the top 10 of atheism. I do think that different countries treat their women better than others, and I think that is a vital measure of the progress towards maximixing human dignity and potential. If I were a woman, I'd much rather live in one of the above rather than in Nigeria, South Africa, Russia, India or America.

You excised my quotation and thus altered the meaning of the original question, and answered another question instead. Nonetheless, your preferences should be taken for what they are objectively worth.

[Doc]

Certainly desperate. Fascism is a lot more left wing than right wing.

Not at all. The American far-right is essentially fascist with some hollow libertarian rhetoric tacked on. But both are fanatical nationalists that worship military force, permit the government to do anything in the name of national security, and wish to enforce their version of morality on as much of people's private lives as possible (features shared by Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism). This is in fact one of the most embarrassing things about American conservatism: self-denial. European far-right parties are openly fascist, American fascists pretend they are frontiersmen.

Obama:"I am really good at killing people"

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2354

Fascist or Psychopath take your pick

[Mr. Perfect]

Not at all. The American far-right is essentially fascist with some hollow libertarian rhetoric tacked on. But both are fanatical nationalists

Tell me your thoughts on Canada.

that worship military force, permit the government to do anything in the name of national security,

LIBYA AFG Syria Iraq Iran drones NSA T&A/TSA stop and frisk lost the urge to type

and wish to enforce their version of morality on as much of people's private lives as possible (features shared by Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism).

Like how. The larges increase in pornography in world history occurred under complete Republican governance.

This is in fact one of the most embarrassing things about American conservatism: self-denial. European far-right parties are openly fascist, American fascists pretend they are frontiersmen.

Looks like you've set up a little ersatz race there ibs.

You live in an alternate universe.

[monster_gardener]

There is no religion that I am aware of that permits the murder of civilians.

Then you seem to be not very aware.....

I am more aware of this subject than you are. Islam does not permit the murder of civilians, and examples of such are a tiny aberration. For a great explanation of this from a legitimate expert on the subject perhaps consult Bernard Lewis? I recommend against cut-pasting arguments and quotes from random websites.

Not that this comment of your was even on topic. Just more spamming of failed arguments you've maid in a dozen unrelated threads.

Thanks for your post, iBS

Islam does not permit the murder of civilians,

A refuted false statement/lie with counter examples from the time of Mohammed himself through Ghazali and the Barbary Pirates to the September 11, 2001 attacks and since...

Islam has allowed murder of civilians beginning with Mohammed himself, the alleged exemplar for all Muslims

examples of such are a tiny aberration.

Aberrations like Mohammed, the founder of Islam, and Ghalazi, the Islamic equivalent of St. Thomas Aquinas


Wait a minute! How tall was Mohammed?

If he was short enough, perhaps Mohammed was a "tiny aberration"

“Neither tall nor short, small but middle-sized.” – (Hazrath Anas)

neither short so as to look insignificant nor tall to look unbecoming,

http://turntoislam.com/community/thread ... saw.15806/

Nope. If these sources lie less than you do, it doesn't sound like Mohammed was a "tiny aberration".

Not that this comment of your was even on topic.

You made a false statement. I have provided significant counter-examples including Mohammed, the founder of Islam using catapults against women & children and Ghazali, the "great" Muslim jurist & theologian reiterating Mohammed's practice as required Islamic Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

you've maid